Jasbir Singh, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been filed by a law breaker, who is forcibly enjoying more than 94 kanal of land, owned by the Gram Panchayat, for the last more than four decades, without payment of any rent either to the Gram Panchayat or to any member of the Jumla Mushtarka Malkaans. Before us, it has frankly been admitted by counsel for the Appellant that the Appellant is not a Khewatdar in the village and at the time of consolidation proceedings, he has not contributed even a single inch of land, when the land was separated/earmarked to use it for the common purposes of the village.
(2.) FACTS reveal that the Gram Panchayat has filed an application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands Regulation Act, 1961 (in short, the Act), seeking ejectment of the Appellant from the land in dispute. The Appellant also filed an application under Section 11 of the Act, alleging that he is owner in possession of the land in dispute and be declared as such. Both the applications were taken up together. Application filed by the Appellant was allowed by the competent authority, whereas that of the Gram Panchayat was dismissed. The Gram Panchayat went in appeal. The Commissioner, in his order dated 2.12.2004, after noting evidence in detail, especially, by making reference to the revenue record in the shape of Jamabandis, which were brought on record by the parties, has observed as under: After hearing the arguments of both the parties and after verifying the record submitted by the Patwari, I came to the conclusion that this fact of the Collector is wrong that the Respondent is continuously coming in possession of the disputed land before 26.1.1950. The collector did not try to inspect the revenue record. According to the Revenue record for the year 1961 -62, Gram Panchayat is the owner in possession of the Khasra No. 87/1, 2, 3, 4, 9 and Khasra No. 88/5 of the disputed land. The similar entries have been done in Jamabandi for the year 1966 -67. According to the Jamabandi for the year 1971 -72, ownership of "Nagar Panchayat" is shown and on khasra Nos. 87/1, 2, 3, 9 Mohinder Ram s/o Khasra Chand and Natha s/o Ganda Ram have been shown as Chakotedar @ Rs. 20/ - per killa per year. Similarly, on Khasra No. 87/4, 5, Dari Ram s/o Harbana is shown as Cultivator. According to Khasra Girdwari during the year 1972 -77, according to the abovesaid serial Nos. , ownership of Nagar Panchayat Deh' has been shown and on the different khasra Nos. Mohinder Ram, Dari Ram, Natha Ram, Natha Ram, Atma Ram have been shown as cultivators. The Respondent has not produced any proof in this Hon'ble Court vide which it is proved that they are the owners of this land. By accepting the appeal of the owners of this land. By accepting the appeal of the Gram Panchayat, the impugned orders has been set aside and ordered that this land vests in Gram Panchayat. By sending the copy of Khasra Girdawari for the year 1950 to 1962 -63 produced by the Appellant to the Collector, it is directed that he should conduct a enquiry of these documents and if these Khasra Girdawari are found to be wrong at its initial stage, then the Criminal case should be registered against the Respondents and concerned official/Employee of the Revenue Deptt. Information be sent to the Head Office within one month about taking the action. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a review application, by stating that he was not heard when order dated 2.12.2004 was passed. The application was dismissed vide order dated 6.7.2007.
(3.) THEN the Appellant came to this Court by filing CWP No. 11917 of 2007, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 25.11.2010, on three counts (i) that the land was shown in the revenue record as Shamlat Deh Hasab Hisaj Mundarja Sajra Nasab and in possession of the Gram Panchayat/Makbooja Malkaan, as such, it belongs to the Gram Panchayat, (ii) that the Appellant has failed to connect the land in his possession with the land owned by the Gram Panchayat before the year 1950 and (iii) that after taking the land on lease, the Appellant has failed to vacate the same.;